Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
NC legislators are considering changing the state’s wetlands definition to match the federal government’s, which the Supreme Court sharply limited.
The timing of the North Carolina bill’s passage was just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett V. EPA decision, a rollback of federal wetlands protections.
Just weeks before the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed the Farm Act over Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto, the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA narrowed the definition of wetlands covered ...
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency may refer to either of two United States Supreme Court cases: . Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (alternatively called Sackett I), 570 U.S. 205 (2013), a case in which the Court ruled that orders issued by the EPA under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I (to distinguish it from the 2023 case), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. [1]
In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Sackett v. EPA that substantially shrank the scope of which wetlands get federal protections, leaving those in places with few state-level ...
USACE and EPA published a revised definition of WOTUS on January 18, 2023, restoring the pre-2015 regulations on the scope of federal jurisdiction over waterways, effective March 20, 2023. [9] On May 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Sackett v.